Newsletter
Land Court’s Invalidation of Deed as the Result of Undue Influence Affirmed
April 10, 2025
Authors
Charles R. Jacob III
Of Counsel, New York
cjacob@goulstonstorrs.com+1 212 878 5143
Jennifer L. Mikels
Director, Boston
jmikels@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3854
Gary M. Ronan
Director, Boston
gronan@goulstonstorrs.com+1 617 574 3593Related Expertise
What constitutes undue influence sufficient to invalidate a deed? In Erikson v. Erikson, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (February 24, 2025), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the Land Court’s invalidation of a deed on the ground that one sibling unduly influenced his mother to deed a home occupied by his sister to his 6-year-old twin daughters.
The decedent (Doris) and her husband had three children, two of whom (Wendy and Bruce) were involved in the case. In 1985, Doris and her husband purchased a house, telling the seller that this property was “exactly what [they wanted] for [their] daughter, Wendy.” Doris told Wendy that they purchased this property to be her inheritance. Wendy lived at the property since 1985, was responsible for the property’s upkeep, utilities, insurance and taxes, and made major repairs and improvements to the property during the years she resided there.
By 2005, Doris’ physical and mental conditions were deteriorating and she moved in with Bruce and his family. While living with Bruce, in November 2006 Doris executed a deed which purported to convey the house in which Wendy lived to Bruce’s twin minor daughters, retaining a life estate for Doris. Doris was eighty-one years old at the time, while the minor daughters were six years old. Soon after, Doris moved into an assisted living facility and then a nursing home. Wendy was never informed of the deed during Doris’ lifetime.
Doris died intestate in May 2020. Wendy learned of the deed after Doris’ death, and brought an action in Land Court seeking to set aside the deed as procured by Bruce’s undue influence. After trial, the Land Court agreed. Bruce appealed, and the Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed. The court cited four elements as comprising an undue influence claim: “(1) an unnatural disposition has been made (2) by a person susceptible to undue influence to the advantage of someone (3) with an opportunity to exercise undue influence and (4) who in fact has used that opportunity to procure the contested disposition through improper means.”
The court found Wendy had proven all four elements. (1) The disposition was “unnatural” because “it was highly unusual to convey real estate to six year old children and to retain a life estate in property one does not intend to occupy.” (2) Citing evidence of previous confusion by Doris, the court found that “[t]he [trial] judge’s conclusion that her confusion, coupled with her age, made her susceptible to undue influence was supported by the evidence….” (3) The court agreed with the trial judge that, during the time Doris lived with Bruce, he had the opportunity to exercise undue influence. (4) The court found “Bruce benefitted from this conveyance because it benefitted his minor children, thereby reducing the financial burden of supporting them [and] Bruce [also] believed he could control the property….”
The Takeaway
In considering whether to bring an undue influence claim, or how to defend such a claim, counsel should give close attention to the four factors discussed in Erikson. Further, if the subject matter is a deed, Erikson indicates that the Land Court may be a proper forum rather than the Probate & Family Court.
Related Insights
Recognition
Goulston & Storrs Attorneys Named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers List
Boston Magazine
December 2, 2025